Are you so offensive because I reffered to the designer as "s/he"? Well, I don't think that the identity matters at all. Nowadays, people are are trying to be that much gender correct, that referring to God or designer, if you will, just as he, seems a little incorrect.

But back to our topic. You probably misunderstood, hopefully miswillingly. I didn't say, that DNA is crap, I referred to crap DNA, as I forgot the correct vocabulary 'junk DNA'. And I'm not talking about introns as these are often involved in expression regulation through siRNA, but I'm talking about the repetitive sequences and retrotranspozones. Why did the creator give us the viruses and all this, for which we must waste energy during EVERY cell division? And we have billions of cells only in one human body...

JackBean wrote:Are you so offensive because I reffered to the designer as "s/he"? Well, I don't think that the identity matters at all. Nowadays, people are are trying to be that much gender correct, that referring to God or designer, if you will, just as he, seems a little incorrect.

But back to our topic. You probably misunderstood, hopefully miswillingly. I didn't say, that DNA is crap, I referred to crap DNA, as I forgot the correct vocabulary 'junk DNA'. And I'm not talking about introns as these are often involved in expression regulation through siRNA, but I'm talking about the repetitive sequences and retrotranspozones. Why did the creator give us the viruses and all this, for which we must waste energy during EVERY cell division? And we have billions of cells only in one human body...

oh, i seem to have misinterprited that whole crap DNA statement, sorry bout that...but my point still stands, referring to something as pointless or useless simply becuase it is repetitive or becuase we cannot understand it means nothing, its simply conjecture.(nothing wrong with conjecture of course) I predict we will sooner rather then later find a function and i assume there are aready theories out there, my own guess is it could be backup, repeat sequences in codes of computers can be functions that are called again and again, or indeed it may have a totally different fucntion that is not even related soley to chemistry. Repetitive sequences such as we find in DNA aere literally crystalline, and IBM stored information in a hard drive made of crystal in the 90s so who knows what kind of information could be stored there. This is all speculation of course but i can only deduce from my reseach that we will indeed find a function.

Of course to assume that the creator(if there is one) gave us these viruses is just that, an assumption...and if you are talking about the energy to get rid of viruses then it is surely not a waste...

its all about perspective, if there is design in the universe, then whos to say it a god, and even if it was, whos to assume he's flawless, after all we are said to be made in his image, and we are certainly flawed!

Why do you think that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive???

Below is my “theory”. See if you can disprove it with your arguments!!!

- Once upon a time there was a being, let’s call him/her “God”. God was interested in genetic engineering and observing effects of evolution. His primary purpose of coming to Earth was to conduct a large scale experiment – create a race in his/her likeness but capable of surviving in the conditions present on this planet and observe evolution with his/her own eyes. God did not mean to create a person capable of complex thinking. Original “people” were a lot more like animals until one of them (Adam or Eve?) accidently made it into “employee only” section and drank (ate?) potion that activated/introduced genes for brain development (the famous apple of knowledge). After the accident God dumped all of his subjects on Earth in fear that next time someone will drink the potion that will introduce genes of longevity into population of his experimental subjects. If that happens, experiment will be ruined. God’s lifespan was many times that of a person. From time to time God or those of his/her race come to earth to pick up a few people, animals, plants and check progress of the experiment (UFOs/aliens). Sometimes he/she saved some of those subjects from being exterminated by others (see manna machine - http://www.thepansophical.com/node/117) .Feel free to come up with the rest of the story!It is known today that most of the lateral gene transfer and natural selection results in elimination of unwanted genes (loss of function in process of evolution). It is at least just as possible that apes and monkeys came from “human” as the other way around (proposed based on sequence similarity). Loss of a few genes that led to ape would be a lot easier to prove in the lab.

There is no need to disprove it. On the other hand if you want your little mind game to be of any interest you have to provide evidence that:- It has some predictive value.- It is based on evidence (presence of aliens or whatever)- It makes sense- It is useful (see first line)

Otherwise it is just a nocturnal emission of your brain and should be treated as such.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

Yes, Darwin - a great genius. Only if what is evolution? Darwin created the theory of the origin of species through natural selection. And the idea of ​​"Evolution from simple replicators to thinking crown" - stick it to him from evil. It is a stabilizing natural selection has preserved the remains of reasonableness in this brainstem three-race kind of Homo Sapiens throughout more than half-billion years of the paleo-history of vertebrates - since the Middle Cambrian. It is only necessary to understand that no such "evolution", like, from simple replicators to the "crown of the evolutionary creation" was not. "Evolutionary Theory" - is a particular religion, created for the convenience of creationist critique of science. So, for science is complete bullshit. Really should be discussed Devolutionary theory with the main role of Darwin stabilizing selection, which has not yet been created.(Now, try: http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... ge_id%3D82)The first multicellular in the Proterozoic were far smarter and more perfect than us, they still knew how to sculpt a morphological, functional, genetically inherited invention, using a special interface peptide-nucleic technology of their ancestors(http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... .agro.name) and created the so-called "Complex traits - vision, the brain.But after a universal humanity Cambrian amphibious vertebrates and amphibious arthropods began to regress. Initially, the stem species of amphibians and ceased to be a metamorphosis began leaking in the egg or the placenta (in vertebrates) or in the egg or cocoon (arthropods). From the central stem of multiracial repeatedly adjourned degradanty blind species, which are very well specialized in their little niche, but it lost the remnants of intelligence and vast strata of the universal gene pool ... By the way, the mass of the genome of the ancient "fish" and the modern salamander is three times richer than human, we do not have the metabolic pathways "vitamins", "the essential amino acids, have no electric organs, can not hear and does not pronounce the ultrasound ...So, even retaining the basic of race, people now have not one in the Cambrian ... Or in Wende! If it were not for "viral vector civilizations" would long ago have disintegrated into several dead-end specialized primatoids ...(http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... ge_id%3D49)But racism, monoregional theory of the origin considered very specifically lead to this collapse. That the owners of these tools to "divide and conquer" are the main customers of the "theory of evolution" and monoregional theory of races and species. This is it, incidentally, is extremely important to us foist idea that Neanderthal man was "another species of man" and did not interbreed with Cro-Magnon. So, apparently, go down and we are orderly rows along the path of arthropods - the ants and termites will become another relic of the collective ...(http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... ge_id%3D32) - if fantastic ancestors aliens not warning in advance and not just settle us a couple of dozen Cambrian mermaids from the strategic reserves:(http://spacenoology.agro.name/?page_id=4912)

Last edited by LeoPol on Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Do you understand what predictive value means?Because your answer is quite a massive failure to answer. One of the most interesting prediction that the evolution theory made was that if all life is related, all the underlying mechanism of genetics must be closely related and must have derived from a common ancestor. This is a conclusion that can be directly drawn from the basic of evolution long before anyone had any idea what those mechanism were. Yet the universality of said mechanism is now a fact commonly accepted.And when you go in details, you can see plenty of other similar examples. Neither the Biblical, nor any other creation myth can provide this kind of useful insight, hence their total useleness. And uniting rationality (science) and irrationality (faith) is as useful as a band aid on a prosthetic limb.

I wilfully ignore the rest of your answer considering that it failed at the first and most critical hurdle.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

LeoPol, I don't know what you are using, but I might be interested if you can ship it over the borders, it looks very potent. And startingly good at allowing to create hallucinations and maintain cognitive dissonance. Would you care to share?

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

Chernobyl unit 4? It is very hard to make. Is that a diplomatic pouch. But this does not need it! Those articles can suffice. Are there any arguments. Especially about the viral vector of civilizations, they say, impressive!

Do you understand what predictive value means?Because your answer is quite a massive failure to answer. One of the most interesting prediction that the evolution theory made was that if all life is related, all the underlying mechanism of genetics must be closely related and must have derived from a common ancestor. This is a conclusion that can be directly drawn from the basic of evolution long before anyone had any idea what those mechanism were. Yet the universality of said mechanism is now a fact commonly accepted.And when you go in details, you can see plenty of other similar examples. Neither the Biblical, nor any other creation myth can provide this kind of useful insight, hence their total useleness. And uniting rationality (science) and irrationality (faith) is as useful as a band aid on a prosthetic limb.

I wilfully ignore the rest of your answer considering that it failed at the first and most critical hurdle.

Sorry Canalon, but you are off on the definition here. Predictive value means that you can predict something based on the said theory. In this particular case, neither theory of evolution nor bible has any predictive value.

I stated before that evolution is more of a fact than a theory. Here is why:I am talking about molecular evolution, lateral gene transfer, and natural selection when I say evolution. I do not mean that people evolved from microbe. Please, read definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution.

Here is why evolution has no predictive value:

From all observation in regards to natural selection, it follows that all evolutionary changes lead to adaptation to environment. The only problem is, you cannot predict what changes to expect due to a specific change in environment.Also, according to most evolutionary trees we have prokaryote-> eukaryote-> asexual organisms -> unisex organisms -> sex-changing species -> male/female sex species (roughly).The problem with that is the fact that Y chromosome is deteriorating in all species that have it. That means that males (as we know them) of all species are in process of being extinct. Sex-changing species are the closest ones in evolution. Doesn't it mean that we are heading in that direction via evolution?

P.S. I like debate and reasoning outside the box. So, please, give your full criticism and let me know of any logical flaws you can find.

I have no problem defending my arguments First I have to say that I could not agree more about the inability of the theory of evolution to predict anything about the evolutionary change that will happen in the future. For the exact same reason that you point out. However it allows scientists to make predictions about what is currently unknown based on what we know. For example whenever one isolate a new microorganism, it can be predicted that it will have a DNA, and a short analysis will allow to determine if it is eukaryote or prokaryote, and then use ribosomal genes to have an idea of where it goes in the tree of life. Or you can look at the thumb of a panda and describe how it evolved from the what is know about the ursine family. And you can probably say safely that whatever will evolve in the future will be based on DNA (unless artificial life is successfuly created in the lab and is able to escape and survive) and work very simlarly to what we know know.The theory of evolution is also important in understanding how some genes spread in population and are maintained even when the selective pressure is lifted. It might seem trivial, but it is quite useful when you consider things like the spread of antibiotice resistance in a microbial population.So, in deed the theory of evolution is strongly contingent to historical facts (in a large sense) but it is still much better are predicting what to expect when we study a new organism, or to generalize what we know from one organism to the next. The Bible or any other religious text (including the FSM) do not provide allow any of this sort of insight.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

What you say is all good and well and I will agree for most part. However, first part of your example “whenever one isolate a new microorganism, it can be predicted that it will have a DNA, and a short analysis will allow to determine if it is eukaryote or prokaryote”- has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

The second part of the same argument:

“then use ribosomal genes to have an idea of where it goes in the tree of life. Or you can look at the thumb of a panda and describe how it evolved from the what is know about the ursine family,”

- stands completely on the ASSUMPTIONS that the “tree of life” is correct and that what you “KNOW about the ursine family,” is in fact true. Remember that at some point we KNEW that the world is flat! Or take a less dramatic example: about 10 years ago almost every text book proclaimed that “ALL enzymes are proteins, but not all proteins are enzymes.” This was the axiom that everyone “knew” to be the truth until the discovery of RNA enzymes…

I also would like to see your views on the Y chromosome problem I mentioned…